You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

This might be a useful thread for helping to determine type. If you have a strong opinion either way, that may indicate strong use of a feeling function. If you have an opinion, but hedged in some manner, that may indicate preferring thinking functions. The stronger and more normative the position, the more likely that you're opining through Fi/Te. A conflicted attitude may demonstrate Ti, as this is the sort of issue that it cannot address very well. Finally, an attitude of bewilderment may express Fe, as the practice doesn't cause any social instability.

You see any definite Fi/Te with me?

I'm strongly against this ballot. Circumcision should still be allowed.
However, I am in a position where I believe it should be the boy who choose whether he wants a circumcision or not (not the parents or their religion.) Only in the case of the rarity where not performing circumcision risk the child's life(or some bit of it) would I allow the parents to make the decision to circumcise their child.

Which is very similar to hot topics like abortion. If the pregnancy wasn't due to rape or due to the possible risk of death of the woman, abortion should not be allowed. But in the case such things do occur, it should be allowed.

I'm strongly against this ballot. Circumcision should still be allowed.
However, I am in a position where I believe it should be the boy who choose whether he wants a circumcision or not (not the parents or their religion.) Only in the case of the rarity where not performing circumcision risk the child's life(or some bit of it) would I allow the parents to make the decision to circumcise their child.

Which is very similar to hot topics like abortion. If the pregnancy wasn't due to rape or due to the possible risk of death of the woman, abortion should not be allowed. But in the case such things do occur, it should be allowed.

I'm strongly against this ballot. Circumcision should still be allowed.
However, I am in a position where I believe it should be the boy who choose whether he wants a circumcision or not (not the parents or their religion.) Only in the case of the rarity where not performing circumcision risk the child's life(or some bit of it) would I allow the parents to make the decision to circumcise their child.

Which is very similar to hot topics like abortion. If the pregnancy wasn't due to rape or due to the possible risk of death of the woman, abortion should not be allowed. But in the case such things do occur, it should be allowed.

Yup. You've got a belief which forms the core of your opinion. You develop that belief with a set of objective criteria to lay out exceptions. That's pretty Fi/Te if you ask me.

You know what? This is libertarian (err..libertarian socialist, not anarcho-capitalist libertarian) rather than liberal. Maybe San Francisco should be allowed to have its own laws.

Now that I think about it, the whole damn country should be that way, states and cities should be able to differ on these matters as they see fit. That way, as a United States citizen, you could still move to a part of the country with laws that made you feel comfortable.

you're right, that is libertarian

ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
ENFP
5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
SEE-Fi
Papa Bear
Motivation: Dark Worker
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
Chibi Seme
MTG Color: black/red
Male Archtype: King/LoverSunburst! "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche"I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

I'm strongly against this ballot. Circumcision should still be allowed.
However, I am in a position where I believe it should be the boy who choose whether he wants a circumcision or not (not the parents or their religion.) Only in the case of the rarity where not performing circumcision risk the child's life(or some bit of it) would I allow the parents to make the decision to circumcise their child.

Which is very similar to hot topics like abortion. If the pregnancy wasn't due to rape or due to the possible risk of death of the woman, abortion should not be allowed. But in the case such things do occur, it should be allowed.

I see lots of definite Fi/Te with you

ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
ENFP
5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
SEE-Fi
Papa Bear
Motivation: Dark Worker
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
Chibi Seme
MTG Color: black/red
Male Archtype: King/LoverSunburst! "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche"I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

It's a medical procedure that is only sometimes necessary. I am not a fan of routine infant circumcision at all. But like abortion, which I am also not a fan of but want to remain legal because it should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, I would not want the government to get involved in what should be a decision between parents and doctors. About religious circumcision, I am torn. Part of me believes that if you want to modify your own weenie for the Lord, go right ahead, and let your sons make that decision for themselves when they are old enough. But I know it's more complicated than that, and although it doesn't really sit right with me, I guess I don't think it's harmful enough to violate religious freedom for. (Female circumcision, on the other hand, is.)

A couple rebuttals to points made here that I'd just like to put out there for consideration:

--In the West there's no real "health" reason to do it to every male baby at birth. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;103/3/686
--One big difference between circumcision and abortion is that the baby is born and separate from the mother at the time of circumcision, so there's no controversy about whose body is being adapted.

Well said.

I personally am against it and see no need. I am also not religious. It is my observation that a lot of Americans raise their children similarly to how they were raised, so I guess it's no surprise that most will circumcise their children.

We've had this discussion several times in the past on this forum and when it's mentioned that this isn't medically necessary, there will always be the argument that it is. I previously said that it was considered barbaric when females were mutilated in other countries, yet in the US it is considered perfectly acceptable for males to follow this tradition. Here is a good article explaining the similarities. Female Circumcision VS Male

If my parents had me circumcised as an infant I'd disown them and expect reparations.

Originally Posted by FDG

Actually in Western Europe circumcising your son for no medical reason is considered barbaric and brutal, just as if you were to peel of part of his say, belly skin, just because "it is traditional to do so".

Agreed.

Years ago when I was dating my Husband (who is English) a client of mine made it her business to comment on whether or not he was circumcised. Her exact words were, "Well, men in Europe aren't circumcised so what are you going to do?" I was stunned that she would worry about what I was "going to do" (lol) because what the fuck business is it of hers?? I did what any woman with common sense would do and didn't worry about such trivial matters! I married him and she is still single, 13 years later.